Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (28270)	4/14/2014 11:23:32 AM
From: alanrs	6 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 Hank Scorpio lightshipsailor Old_Sparky simplicity and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124701

I think the link to the solar plant is that they wanted to use the one area as a turtle refuge to offset the destruction of turtle habitat in the solar area. A turtle offset program, there's no doubt a sub-department within BLM that manages these arrangements. It's for the children. ARS

To: miraje who wrote (28270)	4/14/2014 3:09:48 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124701

There are a couple of ways it would be useful to look at the issues, now... which issues clearly were being ignored, before. First, the Bundy Ranch was to be used as an "offset" to mitigate the environmental impact of a solar project... and it appears that it is the solar project boondoogle itself that is put at risk by publicity... and that LARGER story is what they are seeking to try to keep out of the news ? The Bundy's were an incidental side issue... not the core concern ? The linkage between Reid and the Chinese project is real. The link between Reid and all of the solar project plans, as policy, is real. A direct linkage between the Bundy's Ranch and the Chinese project isn't the point... the linkage exists in the policy... which is also about more than only TWO such projects. So, given our awareness of TWO such projects... each of which appear "problematic" to say the least... what other dirt is lurking out there... that they are trying to cover up by making this story go away ? Second, the Bundy's didn't sign up to have their livelihood be destroyed and have their PROPERLY MANAGED ranch being made into a mitigating offset to benefit some other persons acknowledged and permitted ABUSES of the environment which were and are being perpetrated by Harry Reid's pals ? Why should the Bundy's be the ones who pay the cost ? Why should THEY mitigate the impact caused by others... by having their property stolen, and being put out of work ? So, the complete lack of consideration of the Bundy's rights as a ROUTINE element of process... needs to get some focus. A new process being devised... is intended to obviate the old processes ability to obstruct ? That also means... "we're tired of this one man, one vote thing" ? The design of the systems is one INTENDED to operate them in order to obviate individual rights in favor of the collective/corporate benefit creation conducted at the public expense... because that plan pays kickbacks. The design of the system... is institutionalized corruption. The Bundy's are merely one instance... proving that point. Third, the process the BLM did employ... violated their own policies. Someone was prosecuting a purposeful policy of vendetta against the Bundy's... for some reason. They were SELECTED somehow... to be singled out... for some reason ? It's not a mystery why that might have occurred ? And, it seems a good idea that someone should try to use the FOIA to find out who was behind that policy, and why, and who they coordinated with, and how, in making the Bundy's the subject of the "enforcement effort" that just happened to choose the excuses that were used to justify the effort ? Fourth, the fraud of the desert tortoise being endangered... and the WAY that fraud is rigidly employed in order to harm specific people... and is flexible in order to benefit others... should not escape notice... particularly because it is not the only instance in which an implementation of the collective/corporate kickback scheme is being paired with targeting of individuals while the entire scheme is employed as a tool to try to shut the public out of public lands... and with the closing of public access, transferring the allowed use of public land to "preferred constituencies". Re-think the spotted owl controversy in that context ? It isn't the only instance: Interior bureaucrats biased on species issue washingtontimes.com Fifth, pair all the above with issues like this one: Alaska to sue Interior Department for road to reach medical aid washingtontimes.com and what is revealed is a DESIGN to put "the environment" ahead of people, even denying the FACT that people have pre-emptive rights... risk to human life and safety do not come first... and that the takings undertaken, with the intent to shut people out of access to the public lands... are illegitimate. But, what does "protecting the environment" really mean ? It means favoring SOME corporations over people... but, not mining corporations... not timber, cattle, or oil and gas companies... not UNLESS they have the right "focus" (kickback$) or the right people involved. And, if they have the right people involved... then inordinately "rigid" laws suddenly become extremely flexible, and it doesn't matter if you kill a thousand endangered desert tortoises... which proves the ENTIRE FOCUS is a SCAM... intended to benefit some "favored" people or groups... while seeking to harm others... in ways that "just happen" to fall along the lines of $ and political affiliation. The "offsets" and "exclusions" are kickbacks being paid to the environmental lobby... to enable the unrestrained expansion of the corruption of those backing them. And, you thought the IRS thing was a "one off" ? The reason I keep saying... people are seeing boundaries where they do not exist ? The left are using the tool of government power... IN EVERY ASPECT... to try to shift ALL of the resources of the nation, the entire economy, from the control of one group (the public... under free exercise of individual rights) to another (the public... under "collective" rights, controlled by a specific CORPORATE minority)... in many ways. Healthcare currently the most obvious overt example. You see it revealed in the suppression of first amendment rights... of some... where the exposure of the truth is inconvenient. You see it in the IRS scandal. You see it in the DOJ "failing" (and, note clearly, on a bi-partisan basis... which should raise huge red flags) in almost any effort that has proceeded toward investigating or prosecuting corruption. You see it in spades... in the failure of the banks... and the failure to correct the frauds being practiced by the banks... while instead rewarding failed banks with a direct connection to unlimited funding provided by taxpayers... to cover any and all present and future losses. The banks have been "socialized"... but, in a way that requires the banks own the country, instead of the country owning the banks. You see it in spades... in the treatment of those who succeed... or would succeed... in exposing corporate sponsorship of massive corruption in the court system...